Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Sorta depends on what the actual crime is. Off the top of my head the only crimes that I can think of that follows those terms would be drugs/underage drinking/prostitution/etc. all of which sound morally fine to me.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Sorta depends on what the actual crime is. Off the top of my head the only crimes that I can think of that follows those terms would be drugs/underage drinking/prostitution/etc. all of which sound morally fine to me.

Many of those can actually have victims. One could argue that the ones drinking and doing drugs are the victims. Prostitution is a different matter.

The objective of war is not to die for your cause. It is to make your enemies die for theirs.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Well in the case of lolicon hentai. There is not victim because the images are just drawings and the children are not real. It is illegal in some places and legal in others. Although many people are pushing for it to be completely illegal. This poses a problem. Banning what people can and can't draw is an infringment of freedom of speech. The moment you start banning what people can and can't draw is the moment you open the opportunity to ban what people can and can't think or fantasize about. Drawing is an expression of the imagination and if you ban certain things from being drawn then you open the gateway for theoutlawing of certain thoughts.

If that sort of thinking is true, then it reduces "victim-less" to a very narrow definition.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I see. I'd have to agree with Krueger, on the particular two examples. I do agree that freedom of expression, verbally and artistically, shouldn't be limited. I've personally always been on the fence about whether there should be a legal age for sex. On one hand, it's your body and the government really shouldn't have a right to tell you how to use it (which is what leads me to my view that drugs/alcohol shouldn't be legally restricted); however I do see that if it weren't legally defined, it would make sexual abuse much easier for those who would attempt it. I do admit though, that my opinion on that may be influenced by the fact that I'm attracted to younger girls than most. The reason I allow myself to feel that way is because I'm nowhere near the cliche "30-year-old man in a basement fapping to little girls." I am 17 and I would genuinely care for her if I were to have a relationship with, say, a 12 year old girl (which is the absolute minimum I would consider). That's another discussion entirely, though; I've gotten off topic...

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I see. I'd have to agree with Krueger, on the particular two examples. I do agree that freedom of expression, verbally and artistically, shouldn't be limited. I've personally always been on the fence about whether there should be a legal age for sex. On one hand, it's your body and the government really shouldn't have a right to tell you how to use it (which is what leads me to my view that drugs/alcohol shouldn't be legally restricted); however I do see that if it weren't legally defined, it would make sexual abuse much easier for those who would attempt it. I do admit though, that my opinion on that may be influenced by the fact that I'm attracted to younger girls than most. The reason I allow myself to feel that way is because I'm nowhere near the cliche "30-year-old man in a basement fapping to little girls." I am 17 and I would genuinely care for her if I were to have a relationship with, say, a 12 year old girl (which is the absolute minimum I would consider). That's another discussion entirely, though; I've gotten off topic...

Lol ok. I find nothing wrong with your relationship example as long as the parents are fully consenting to it.

The objective of war is not to die for your cause. It is to make your enemies die for theirs.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Many of those can actually have victims. One could argue that the ones drinking and doing drugs are the victims. Prostitution is a different matter.

I smoke weed and drink, obviously underage, and I have never felt like I was the victim. Hard to consider myself a victim when its my choice to consume either of them. Although I guess you could call the ones addicted to booze victims. The point I was trying to make though, was that I harm nobody when I'm drunk or high, therefore a victimless crime.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Another victimless crime is filesharing. Stealing is totally different because you are removing a physical entity. No one is physically hurt or becomes a "victim." The only thing they feel they're a victim of is money and that's nothing but a physical entity. It's not like you even took it off the shelf and the guy lost money for it. Most things are digital now-days so the "production cost" of software is bullshit except paying the people that program and/or design it. People are always going to share things and I don't know why the government and companies are lashing out at their own citizens for it. They ban one thing, people will find a way around it to obtain it. Same goes for guns, drugs, and other shit. In short, let people do as they please. Some people are assholes, some people aren't. It's just the way the world works and there's no logical reason to try to control other people because a minority of people got butthurt. Life goes on.